Although the film isn’t seen as bringing anything new to light – rather it cobbles together material from archives and  reflects the Islamophobic views that Wilders has long been expressing – it certainly has sparked debate. 

Not only has the movie opened perhaps a much-needed debate, Wilders has managed to illicit reactions through using some footage and a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed by Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard without asking permission as well as showing rapper Salah Edin’s face instead of Mohammed B – murderer of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh.

Some commentary from Expatica readers:

Volja:
“The film doesn’t bring any new information or real solutions. Everyone with an interest in current affairs knows most of this stuff already. Using classical music to enhance the viewers’ emotional involvement is a bit corny for a political film. It’s too short and simplistic. And it took way too long before he showed it (to create a media hype). I don't expect this to have much impact. Things will go on like normal.

Riana:
“If you don’t’ think for yourself then you can become a victim of his (Wilders) views.”

Ryan:

"I am considering rioting over how appalling the editing and production of this "film" were. Shameful effort from beginning to end"

albrecht:

"Isn't truth a defence against libel or slander? The Islamist radicals, and their apologists in European governments, seem to imply that Wilders is making false accusations about Islam. Not having seen the film due to the odious censorship by governments and private companies, I can't comment except from the responses from the radical Islamists and news reports. However, Wilders uses actual passages from the Koran (aka Qu'ran), so what is the crime? Showing non-Muslims what is in the "holy" book? Or showing illiterate Muslims what is in the book? The Bible has many passages, particularly in the Old Testament, that are violent or advocate punishment for a littany of sins. So it is also illegal to read the Bible in the Netherlands or Europe? Or is Wilders correctly pointing out that members of a religion need to move on from the literal, radical interpetation of their holy books and live in a tolerant, democratic society?"

Some points of view taken from Liveleak:

Digital Babu:
“My point is that he, as many other demagogues with an unhealthy interest in the lives of Muslims, creates a fairytale world in which a book or a religion taken literally is the thriving force behind the human condition of said group. He denies all practical differences among Muslims and denies all the things we already have overcome in the past few decades if it comes to migration politics.

”His only agenda seems to be to maintain a fearsome world in which right and wrong have become clearly distinguished, and he does so by an appeal on the common stupidity of man to take the easier route of thought.”

Abdul Kargbo
 “…Fitna’s success as both a film and a piece of propaganda will be measured by its ability to turn people who don’t already fear Muslims into Islamophobes after they see the film. I doubt whether Fitna will sway any tolerant person but for those who already suspect, fear, or hate the practitioners of Islam, this film will be fuel for their antipathy.”

Jonathan Miller has a point when he says on BBC programme Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief (Part 1):

“For myself, as for many people, it is only in the light of such current controversies with regard to belief that I have found myself willing to explicitly articulate my disbelief."

Fitna still online
You can still download Fitna the Movie from some P2P sites or stream the video on Google.

30 March 2008 

Natasha Gunn

Editor Expatica Netherlands

 [Copyright Expatica 2008]